[Cite as State v. Halbert, 2024-Ohio-2534.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

EDWARD HALBERT,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2024-01-003

O P I N I O N

7/1/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 20CR37130

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Christopher Bazeley, for appellant.

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Edward Halbert, appeals the decision of the Warren County 

Court of Common Pleas ordering the 15-year-to-life prison sentence he received for 

murdering his cellmate at the Warren County Correctional Institution to be served 

consecutively to the prison sentence he was currently serving at the time of the murder. 
Warren CA2024-01-003

- 2 -

For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

{¶ 2} On March 1, 2023, following a three-day jury trial, Halbert was found guilty 

of murdering his cellmate, Delvin Bunton, while both men were inmates incarcerated at 

the Warren County Correctional Institution.1 Upon the return of the jury's verdict, the trial 

court issued a decision sentencing Halbert to serve a term of 15 years to life in prison for 

Bunton's murder. The trial court ordered that 15-year-to-life prison sentence be served 

consecutively to the prison sentence that Halbert was currently serving at the time of 

Bunton's murder. Halbert appealed the jury's verdict and the trial court's sentence. This 

court affirmed the jury's verdict finding Halbert guilty of murdering Bunton, but reversed 

the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Halbert, 2023-Ohio4471 (12th Dist.) ("Halbert I"). 

{¶ 3} In so doing, this court noted that the record did not "reflect that the court 

addressed the required proportionality finding or engaged in the proportionality analysis 

and found that the seriousness of Halbert's conduct and the danger he posed to the public 

justified a consecutive sentence." Id. at ¶ 35. This court therefore vacated that portion 

of the trial court's judgment imposing consecutive sentences and remanded the matter to 

the trial court for resentencing. On remand, we instructed the trial court that it:

shall consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate 

under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and if so, shall make the required 

statutory findings on the record at resentencing and 

incorporate its findings into a sentencing entry.

Id. at ¶ 38.

{¶ 4} On January 22, 2024, the trial court held the necessary resentencing 

1. The record indicates that prior to murdering Bunton, Halbert had been in prison for over 40 years, first 

beginning in the early 1980's, on charges of robbery, aggravated robbery, attempted rape, rape, and 

assault. 
Warren CA2024-01-003

- 3 -

hearing as instructed by this court in Halbert I. This ultimately resulted in the trial court 

sentencing Halbert to the same 15-year-to-life prison sentence that the court had 

originally imposed. This time, however, the trial court made the necessary consecutive 

sentence findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). In so doing, the trial court stated:

Okay. Defendant's history demonstrates consecutive 

sentences are necessary to * * * protect the public from future 

crime by the defendant. That the sentences are consecutive 

sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the 

offender's conduct and to the danger of the offender⎯that the 

offender poses to the public. I've considered that. And, again, 

the finding that his history demonstrates consecutive 

sentences are necessary.

Upon the conclusion of the trial court's resentencing hearing, the trial court filed its 

judgment entry of sentence. Incorporated into that entry were the trial court's consecutive 

sentence findings set forth above. 

{¶ 5} On January 23, 2024, Halbert filed a notice of appeal. Following briefing 

from both parties, the case was submitted to this court for consideration on May 22, 2024. 

Halbert's appeal now properly before this court for decision, Halbert raises one

assignment of error for review. In that single assignment of error, Halbert argues the trial 

court erred by imposing consecutive sentences upon remand in this case from Halbert I. 

We disagree.

{¶ 6} "A felony sentence is reviewed under the standard set forth in R.C. 

2953.08(G)(2)." State v. Downing, 2024-Ohio-381, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). Pursuant to that 

statute:

The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise 

modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may 

vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing 

court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for 

review is not whether the sentencing court abused its 

discretion. The appellate court may take any action 

authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds 
Warren CA2024-01-003

- 4 -

either of the following:

That the record does not support the sentencing court's 

findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division 

(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 

2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

Therefore, given the plain language set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and (b), this court 

may modify or vacate a felony sentence only if, by clear and convincing evidence, the 

record does not support the trial court's findings under relevant statutes, or the sentence 

is otherwise contrary to law. State v. Harp, 2016-Ohio-4921, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 7} "The consecutive sentence statute, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), is one of the 

relevant statutes specifically mentioned in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)." State v. Richey, 2023-

Ohio-336, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). "Thus, there are two ways that a defendant can challenge 

consecutive sentences on appeal." State v. Shiveley, 2022-Ohio-4036, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). 

The defendant can argue that, pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), the record does not 

support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). 

State v. Morris, 2023-Ohio-3412, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.). The defendant can also argue that, 

pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary to 

law because the trial court failed to make the necessary consecutive sentence findings 

as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). State v. Iverson, 2023-Ohio-1601, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.). 

"These are the only two means that the legislature provided to defendants to challenge 

their consecutive sentences on appeal." State v. Perry, 2023-Ohio-3106, ¶ 25 (12th 

Dist.). 

{¶ 8} To support his claim that it was error for the trial court to impose consecutive 

sentences upon remand in this case from Halbert I, Halbert initially argues that he "suffers 

from severe mental health issues which cloud his judgment." Halbert also argues that 
Warren CA2024-01-003

- 5 -

the evidence in this case reveals that the victim, Bunton, was not simply an "innocent 

bystander who was attacked unprovoked." Halbert argues that the evidence instead 

demonstrates that Bunton "participated in, as well as proposed," the "scheme" that 

ultimately resulted in his death. That being, a plan for Halbert to assist Bunton in making 

a fake suicide attempt so that Bunton could obtain a transfer to a different correctional 

facility within Ohio. 

{¶ 9} However, even if we were to ignore the fact that this court has already 

rejected Halbert's claim that "the evidence shows that [he] merely intended to 'help' 

Bunton by 'fak[ing] a suicide attempt, not to harm' him" when affirming the jury's verdict 

finding Halbert guilty of murder in Halbert I, 2023-Ohio-4471 at ¶ 21-27 (12th Dist.),

neither of Halbert's arguments raised herein present any challenge to whether, in 

accordance with R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the trial court made the necessary consecutive 

sentence findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Halbert's arguments also do not 

contest whether, under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), the record supports the trial court's 

consecutive sentence findings made under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Therefore, because 

these were the only two means the legislature provided to defendants like Halbert to 

challenge a trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences on appeal, neither of which 

Halbert raised in this case, Halbert's claim that it was error for the trial court to impose 

consecutive sentences upon remand from this court in Halbert I lacks merit. Accordingly, 

finding no merit to Halbert's claim raised herein, Halbert's single assignment of error lacks 

merit and is overruled.

{¶ 10} Judgment affirmed.

HENDRICKSON and BYRNE, JJ., concur.